|
I just registered to say that i completely agree with OP.
Naniwa didnt want to put any focus into a meaningless game, but was "forced" to play it (afaik).
If gameplay is justified by the ultimate goal of winning, why go through with games where you have nothing to win.
If you consider what naniwa did bad sportsmanship, or bad manner because he didnt deliver a good performance and entertainment, then dont we need to rethink how we see on early all-ins and cheeses? They certainly dont have a high level of entertainment but are justified by the fact that they (if they work) give the player a win. Then we're back to the fact that it's all about achievements and then playing out games that wont give you a single achievement seems meaningless.
Sorry for my terribad english, sporting a high fever here y'all.
|
IMO there is a huge difference between fielding B-team players in a not so important match and let them proof themself - those players usually try very hard in those games. It's their chance to show what they're capable of - and not trying at all.
|
On December 13 2011 22:19 Itsmedudeman wrote:
So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan?
But you didint really pay to only watch Naniwa did you, I cant really see any dignity with doing a stupid allin and still lose, whats the point. Anyway like people said, if there is no meaning why even play
notice that i said play and not try, because he had nothing worth trying for
|
On December 14 2011 01:39 Knaarz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 22:19 Itsmedudeman wrote:
So let's say a team goes 0-X or just has a bad record. They're gonna play the last game of the season with 0 chance to make it in the playoffs. What do they do? They shit on everyone around them by fucking around. Let's say it was football. The other team's running back gets through and no one chases after him, no one does anything to even try to save a bit of their dignity and give fans who payed and stayed loyal a show or at least some sign of trying. Who would defend that as a fan? But you didint really pay to only watch Naniwa did you, I cant really see any dignity with doing a stupid allin and still lose, whats the point. Anyway like people said, if there is no meaning why even play notice that i said play and not try, because he had nothing worth trying for
Lol? Some people payed. But pay or not pay, fans watching from home would have been very upset. Your point is really not applicable at all.
|
United States15275 Posts
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
I always have fun discussing arguments I do not agree with, so let's start from the beginning.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:It's September 21, 2011. The 49-96 Houston Astros are in Cincinnati, Ohio to play the 76-80 Reds. Both teams below the .500 mark, the game has no meaning whatsoever -- not for the Astros, not for the Reds, not for any other team in the division (NL Central). As bad as the Astros were that season, they did have what could be deemed an A-lineup, a lineup consisting of their best players at each position. That was not the lineup they used on this Wednesday afternoon. A typical full-time Major League hitter accrues in excess of 600 plate appearances in a single season. Here is a look at the lineup the Astros used along with each player's PA total: Jordan Schafer, CF (118 PA) J.B. Shuck, RF (92 PA) J.D. Martinez, LF (226 PA) Carlos Lee, 1B (653 PA) Matt Downs, 2B (222 PA) Chris Johnson, 3B (405 PA) Clint Barmes, SS (495 PA) J.R. Towles, C (165 PA) Pitcher (pitchers get significantly fewer PA than position players, so this is irrelevant) The average hitter in the lineup had about 300 PA, or half that of a full-time player. Needless to say, the Astros were intentionally putting out a sub-par lineup. To prove that, let's look at their offensive production using a statistic called weighted on-base average (wOBA). The league average is between .310-.320. Schafer, .298 Shuck, .312 Martinez, .319 Lee, .339 Downs, .373 Johnson, .289 Barmes, .308 Towles, .245 Only two Astros made it above the .320 threshold. It is safe to say that the Astros were, uh, not trying their hardest to win that afternoon's game. I bring this up because a controversy arose earlier after both Naniwa and Nestea went 0-3 in their group in the Blizzard Cup. With eight of ten matches already completed, the fates of both players were sealed, making their match-up in Game #9 meaningless. Naniwa chose, instead of playing out an irrelevant game, to rush with his six starting workers across the map of Antiga Shipyard towards Nestea's base. Needless to say, the probe rush did not succeed; Naniwa dropped to 0-4 while Nestea erased the goose egg in his wins column. Quickly after the game, TL and Reddit were on fire with complaints from community members, claiming that Naniwa's behavior was immature and disrespectful. Some called for punishment to be levied from GOM; others angrily sent emails to Naniwa's new team, Quantic Gaming. I seem to be in the minority thinking that Naniwa did nothing wrong, just as the Astros above did nothing wrong by putting out their "B-lineup" several months ago in the final weeks of the baseball season.
Batting averages, names, etc. etc.
Astros management is certainly aware that fielding a sub-par lineup increases the chances of losing the game, but as you've said winning the game is no longer their main priority. However, the difference between Naniwa and Astros management is that the latter uses the game to advance other agendas. Fielding B-teamers allows them to play games that are technically "major league" but have nothing at stake in terms of making the playoffs. Those players have the opportunity to gain experience as well as win games. Subsequently their performance on the field can be evaluated and judged for future reference.
Meanwhile Naniwa chose to do a probe rush because he did not want to play the game, and the reason for that is obvious. But he did not use the opportunity to test anything, to confirm a strategy, to blow off steam. Why did he even play the game if he had no intentions of winning and no other intentions altogether? Naniwa could have forfeited the match in a way that both expressed his dislike at the system yet was respectful towards GOM, Quantic, and Nestea. But he chose to do a strategy that, no matter what semantics you try to use, was expected to fail. .
In short, this part of the OP is simply wrong because it confuses intentions. Naniwa threw his game because there was nothing at stake FOR HIM (which must be stated in big letters before its importance gets obscured), the Astros risk losing more games to evaluate their opportunities for future success.
You've confusing two senses of "wrong", one associated with "legality" and the other with "immorality". Nothing Naniwa did was technically against the rules and I doubt anyone could build a case that a probe rush is expressly forbidden in a GSL game. Yet this doesn't answer the question of whether it was justified in the first place, such behavior should be imitated in similar future scenarios, and other players should do the same thing if so inclined. Watching pornography all day isn't against the law, but I would never do it simply because it was legal.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:First of all, the blame should lie with GOM for going with a tournament structure in which players were given the unsavory choice of forfeiting a match (whether officially or by worker-rushing) or playing out an irrelevant game. Being a pro-gamer is difficult, just ask HuK, who has traveled across the globe to the point of mental and physical exhaustion. I sympathize with players who do not want to waste time and energy playing out a meaningless game, especially after going 0-3 in front of hundreds of thousands of people.
Completely pointless paragraph.
I don't like BO1s. I don't like group stages where players have to play games that mean nothing towards their advancement in a tournament. I don't like watching sloppy play from people who are supposed to be the best in the world. I don't like smelly people, rude girls, blisters on my feet, finishing art projects in the dead of night, missing out on drunken parties, washing my sheets. Yet I will inevitably be in less-than-ideal scenarios, faced with rules I don't agree with, doing necessary things I loathe, stuck in places that I have no control over. What matters is how I compose myself in them and the decisions I make.
Being a pro gamer is difficult. 99% of all jobs are difficult. HuK is a notable exception in terms of travel, so I don't see your point.
I understand you empathize with Naniwa, but in no way does empathy somehow translate into an excuse for his behavior. I endured physical and mental abuse as a child, does that absolve me if I abuse my own children? Causation does not equal justification in any circumstance, whatever your judgement may be.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:
Secondly, the ire directed at Naniwa assumes a worker rush is not a valid strategy. No, a worker rush is not a high-percentage strategy, but it is non-zero, which makes it valid nonetheless. If we are to harangue Naniwa for probe-rushing, then what is to stop us from doing the same with other similarly-fateful strategies?
It is not a high-percentage strategy or a middle-percentage strategy or a low-percentage strategy. It can be described as a "you would probably be struck by lightning twice before this works" strategy. It has no advantage over any builds.
Any strategy has a non-zero chance at success, which makes your distinction between "valid" and "invalid" worthless. There is also a non-zero probability that I can phase through a wall by running into it, guess the winner of GSL 2032, and win games by making only one marine every 10 minutes. Yet no one would do these strategies and if they did do them they would attempt to micro while doing them.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:We need to have lines here, and they cannot be drawn arbitrarily. More importantly, they should be drawn officially. I don't see anywhere on the GOM website where they have official rules for their tournaments, but something like that should be addressed in written word. Such ruling does not exist in most (if not all) professional sports; teams are allowed to tank on purpose. This is especially prevalent in the NBA, when teams will intentionally lose to increase the probability that they get a good draft pick in the lottery. It happens in the NFL as well. In fact, the phrase "suck for Luck" refers to teams taking a dive every week so they are better suited to draft college quarterback Andrew Luck, currently at Stanford University.
The comparison to the NFL and NBA doesn't work for the most obvious reason of all: the tradition of throwing games to get better draft picks is not officially sanctioned or even recognized by the NFL itself. It's a deliberately dirty tactic that sharp minds can easily identify, one that unfortunately clashes with the image Goodell and the owners project and what fans want to believe about their team. It doesn't get punished because it's nearly impossible to prove and acknowledging it would raise an absolute shitstorm among the many interest groups involved. The public accepts it as a reality that cannot be controlled, not as a positive aspect of the game.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:A common refrain I've read is that Naniwa owes it to GOM, the sponsors, his team, the fans, etc. to play out the meaningless game. And that is just flat-out wrong. Naniwa's job is to win games -- that is, win games that matter. Winning that game against Nestea would not have done anything for Naniwa except earn a couple brownie points (in other words, nothing). And if it's not against official rules and the terms of his contract with Quantic Gaming, then again, he did nothing wrong. Likewise, fans who showed up to that Astros-Reds game on September 21 were not owed their money back. The sponsors were not refunded ad revenue, either (as some have suggested be done with GOM). That is the risk you take as a fan when you purchase tickets, and that is the risk you take as a business when you choose to advertise. Ultimately, if the fans and/or the sponsors do have a legitimate gripe about what happened, that is to be taken up with GOM, not Naniwa.
I agree that Naniwa should not have to play simply because of peer pressure. But this simply brings us back to why he even played it in the first place. He could have forfeited and made it clear that he did not want to play a game that personally meant nothing to him. Alternatively he could have sucked it up, played a normal game, won/lost and left. One of the reasons people are annoyed is because he neither stuck to a set of principles nor accepted an undesirable situation with any measure of grace. His decision was judged as childish and amplified by his previous attempts to become more respectable within the community. The haters will crow and feverishly point this out as the "real" Naniwa, the fans will attempt to pass it off as "funny" or "not serious" and other euphemisms that ignore Naniwa's history and what that means for his future.
GOM did not make him do a probe rush.
Once again, what is legal =/= what is right or desirable.
On December 13 2011 22:15 Crashburn wrote:As a fan, you can hate Naniwa for whatever reasons you want, legitimate or not. When we're dealing with a player's livelihood, however, we need to have rational, adult conversations, and I'm just not seeing any of that in the community. When you calm down, take a step back and examine the situation, you should see that Naniwa is taking entirely too much grief for what was ultimately a decision made in his best interest.
Classic example of missing the forest for the trees. You've gotten so focused on finding analogies and examples that mirror Naniwa's decision that you don't even understand why people are angry in the first place. It is certainly not rational to ignore the fans' reasons for feeling pissed before judging them as irrational.
|
On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
|
Dude 90% of the GSL finals were shit, once a player goes down 2 or 3 games changes are he wont win the last match, yet they don't get shit on for playing poorly maybe not on purpose but you cant know whether or not they did. For instance OGSinca did a dark templar expand 4 games in a row against Nestea and lost all 4 games, now the first 2 times he might have been trying that strategy out, in my opinion the 3rd and 4th game he was just depressed and purposely did a strategy he knew was shit and that Nestea knew about, thus OGSinca threw the game aswell. See what I did there? Jokes aside In my opinion when you are losing and losing over and over again annoying games you do get psycologically demontivated and can just throw games. In sport you can never know whether a team/player tries or not to win / lose on purpose unless you have evidence like in the CoCa case or if they openly do it. Yet, if you openly lose a USELESS match in my opinion it should not matter as this is a professional sport it is your benefits as a player to win games, if a progamer does not see benefits in winning a USELESS game then let him lose it, I mean he could've just left the Gom studios for all he cared and not even played, or played a normal game and just play shit on purpose in it and lose as he said in his interview. Point is you can't control players, you shouldn't control players and you should most definately NOT give shit to players for doing thing like that unless they are fixing games for PROFIT because that causes economic background markets which damage the finance of the industry.
|
On December 14 2011 01:52 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
Two actions with the same outcome cannot just be qualified as equal; two actions with different intents but the same outcome are inherently different. But even if you disagree with that, I'll use your own definition then. You claim that if two outcomes are the same, then the actions can be qualified as equal.
I'll bet that if Naniwa forfeited 'officially,' then the outcome would be significantly different than it is now; specifically, backlash would be less. You can't just say that an 'irrational reaction' is somehow not a legitimate outcome from an action; a reaction is a reaction even if you can't understand the mechanics behind it and dismiss it as irrationality. Therefore, Naniwa's official forfeit and the current status quo cannot be qualified as equal under your definition.
It's funny because this has nothing to do with whether his actions were justified/legitimate anyway. Just a tangent that lead to nowhere.
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:52 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
I don't have an argument. I'm merely showing that Crashburn's argument is not an argument at all. It's a series of comparisons and questionable premises that don't address the issue.
Whether Naniwa's actions were rational or irrational means nothing to me. I think Crashburn's argument is not rational, and I'm showing that it's not even logical.
Let me throw an extreme example at you. Suppose you are a ruler of a country and you find that your approval ratings have taken a dive in the last few months. You really want those ratings, so much that you make it the primary goal of your administration. Would you attempt to persuade the public that you're all sunshine and rainbows and teddy bears through public speeches and rallies and whatnot? Would you do the same thing via constant commercials and marketing? Would you allow yourself to be misrepresented in said commercials if it made people believe you were kind and caring? Would you pay people to say you were kind and caring? Would you intimidate people with the threat of punishment to boost your approval ratings?
Does the method matter at all as long as the results are accomplished? All of these methods are perfectly rational depending on your goals. In fact there is no accepted standard on what separates "rational" and "irrational" behavior, unless you are a positivist.
|
I believe thats why OSL/MSL has this group format:
game1: AvB
game2: CvD
game3: win1 v win2
game4: los1 v los2
game5: los3 vs win4
This way the host ensures no meaningless games are played.
|
CosmicSpiral knows what he is talking about and I agree with him.
It's a shame some people would use their job positions in defending their arguments when debating on the internet.
|
On December 14 2011 02:30 Navane wrote:
I believe thats why OSL/MSL has this group format:
game1: AvB
game2: CvD
game3: win1 v win2
game4: los1 v los2
game5: los3 vs win4
This way the host ensures no meaningless games are played.
It is the normal GSL format too in ro32, ro 16...
|
I absolutely agree with CosmicSpiral. I think that OP's point is very poorly argued and that it has only received this attention because of his position.
I actually agree that Naniwa doesn't deserve all of this rage over his decision, but I don't see the comparison to sports as relevant.
|
Exceptions should be made if you have a crippling mental state...in a recent interview this is what Naniwa mentioned. If this had been explained earlier I believe it would be an acceptable reason (to other people), and the controversy wouldn't exist. If the player truly feels like he/she can't play up to an acceptable standard, they should be allowed to forfeit. I think some of the confusion that arises when a player probe rushes, without explanation, is that people can view that as not respecting his opponent or the fans. Whereas with a forfeit you have a chance to explain why you no longer wish to play, or at least that's what I feel should take place.
But more fundamentally, do players morally owe anything to the fans/producers? I think that's really the problem here, in that many Koreans and foreigners think that they do. But to me I don't see why the player should owe anything to anyone...he/she should be allowed to play any games they want at their discretion. Conversely I think its the fans that are being selfish, in that they believe the pro-gamer must play games that may be meaningless for the fans' entertainment.
I feel like this is strongly reminiscent of the whole "gg"/BM stuff. If I'm not nice to someone else (but also not mean or negative in any way), does that make me a bad person? Surely not! Should I be attacked for not playing a game for the community? I think that's kind of wrong. I don't think anyone can claim that pro-gamers have an obligation to please the fans. It is indeed a nice thing to do to play a game for them, but that's just like any other nice thing people do voluntarily for others.
That said if I was in his position the overwhelming sense that I'm being watched by tens of thousands of people (and later through vods a lot more) would pressure me to try to please them by showing good games. I guess I'd be afraid of the reaction if I didn't do what a "mannered" pro gamer normally does. Its kind of like peer pressure.
|
5003 Posts
On December 14 2011 01:52 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction.
You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision. An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences.
Actually, let's agree that Naniwa *was* rational. Then his actions are even more insulting because he still chose the option that made a mockery of everyone involved publicly. If he had just told GOM he's forfeiting the last match it would have been covered up nicely by GOM as "well there's no point in playing the last match...". He deliberately chose this option because it's more of a public mockery. Then are the fans irrational for calling him out for it?
It's clear Naniwa was being irrational and his actions had very unintended consequences he was probably unaware of given that he's from a far different culture. Yes, fans are outraged, Koreans are insulted because turns out Naniwa is a bounty hunter instead of what they call a "progamer". Yes, people will react to what they see in their own perspective and not yours because they all have their own definitions that they will stick to no matter what kind of definitions you want to use. Their outrage is rational given their expectations.
So drop the fucking pretense because you're no better than anyone else being outraged at this situation.
|
They tried though, naniwa did not.
|
I don't understand people saying he is not a progamer. He gets payed to play the game because he is really good right? Now I don't necessarily agree with Naniwa doing what he did, but the thing that bothers me is that people are trying to say that he shouldn't be called a progamer. If all the progamers were super mannered etc like the koreans then watching this game would be boring. I personally find alot of entertainment from Naniwa's antics! I think people should chill out. I tune in to watch Naniwa, but I don't tune in to watch other foreign progamers, because Naniwa is one of my favorite players regardless of the way he acts etc. In fact, his drive for winning and his complete disregard for non-important matches is part of what makes him such an interesting and awesome player to me. In the end everyone is different, and we enjoy, and react differently to different personalities etc. In the end, thousands of people are still going to want to watch Naniwa, and his sponsors are going to get good publicity because he is good and wins, and many people like his "I don't care about anything except winning" attitude.
There are many players that are controversial for many different reasons... whether it is they are actually not that good, or because they are anti social etc. I for one don't want to see only mannered and thoughtful respectul players in the tournaments I watch. I want to have a chance of seeing something crazy and/or irrational.
|
On December 13 2011 22:29 coddan wrote:
There are more factors in real sports than Starcraft. When an unimportant game is coming up you use that game to field inexperienced player, to test them and let the gain some match experience. You don't use all your best players to rest them and to not risk injury for nothing. While the internet certainly is flipping its shit over nothing, these are not comparable situations.
That's a tiny part of it sure. If they REALLY want some of their rookies to get experience. They'll pull one of them at a time onto the starting lineup.
In reality though. You really really want to give your players the rest and thusly you never let your players strain yourself over something totally meaningless.
|
On December 14 2011 02:49 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 01:52 Mecker wrote:On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction. You're far from rational. A rational action would mean that you understand the consequences of the actions and you have thought it through and made your decision. An irrational action is like raging like a retard on blogs because a few people said rather retarded things to you and reacting emotionally and not thinking through of consequences. Actually, let's agree that Naniwa *was* rational. Then his actions are even more insulting because he still chose the option that made a mockery of everyone involved publicly. If he had just told GOM he's forfeiting the last match it would have been covered up nicely by GOM as "well there's no point in playing the last match...". He deliberately chose this option because it's more of a public mockery. Then are the fans irrational for calling him out for it? It's clear Naniwa was being irrational and his actions had very unintended consequences he was probably unaware of given that he's from a far different culture. Yes, fans are outraged, Koreans are insulted because turns out Naniwa is a bounty hunter instead of what they call a "progamer". Yes, people will react to what they see in their own perspective and not yours because they all have their own definitions that they will stick to no matter what kind of definitions you want to use. Their outrage is rational given their expectations. So drop the fucking pretense because you're no better than anyone else being outraged at this situation.
I think both of you didn't read the interview between naniwa/tl.
3/10 - please review coursework.
|
On December 14 2011 02:19 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 01:52 Mecker wrote:On December 14 2011 01:44 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Crashburn, I regret to inform you that your entire argument rests upon a personal peeve of mine: the common mistake of confusing a disparity in goal-oriented philosophies with a disparity between logic and emotion. The truth is the OP is not rational in the slightest. It does not even attempt to be rational in the proper sense of "rational" i.e. arriving at a conclusion based on certain premises that themselves are established via some type of reasoning. You simply state facts and assume that some mystic property from one fact carries over to the other, and thus it leads to another conclusion that ultimately supports your own position on the topic.
Your entire argument is that he should've forfeited "officially" instead of throwing the game. A rational person, like myself, would realise that the outcome is the same and thus the actions can be qualified as equal. You can't call Nani's actions irrational because viewers are having an irrational reaction. I don't have an argument. I'm merely showing that Crashburn's argument is not an argument at all. It's a series of comparisons and questionable premises that don't address the issue. Whether Naniwa's actions were rational or irrational means nothing to me. I think Crashburn's argument is not rational, and I'm showing that it's not even logical. Let me throw an extreme example at you. Suppose you are a ruler of a country and you find that your approval ratings have taken a dive in the last few months. You really want those ratings, so much that you make it the primary goal of your administration. Would you attempt to persuade the public that you're all sunshine and rainbows and teddy bears through public speeches and rallies and whatnot? Would you do the same thing via constant commercials and marketing? Would you allow yourself to be misrepresented in said commercials if it made people believe you were kind and caring? Would you pay people to say you were kind and caring? Would you intimidate people with the threat of punishment to boost your approval ratings? Does the method matter at all as long as the results are accomplished? All of these methods are perfectly rational depending on your goals. In fact there is no accepted standard on what separates "rational" and "irrational" behavior, unless you are a positivist.
Fairly sure the transitive property of money and time investment + emotional fallout is applicable to all competitive walks of life within humanity. Your hyperbolic remark does nothing to resolve but only serves to obfusticate the basic issue of. "I'm angry, I wasted time, I lost games I shouldn't have and I just want to go home".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
